Terri Schiavo

[SunDancer]

Originally Posted by clintl

They certainly know more than anyone else, since it is their professional specialty.

On another board, I read a post from someone who works in a hospice and has seen many people die, and who corroborated that this is a peaceful, painless death. I have yet to see any associated with medicine argue otherwise.

Yeap. They actually do due it with cancer patients as well, who have the tubes remove, and they actually can relate what they are feeling. It's pretty peaceful and painless, and that after the first day or so, the hunger and thrist feelings become non-existent.

[yabanci]

Geniuses.

Man Trys Steal Gun to 'Rescue Schiavo'

Friday March 25, 2005 8:31 AM

SEMINOLE, Fla. (AP) - A man was arrested after trying to steal a weapon from a gun shop so he could ``take some action and rescue Terri Schiavo,'' authorities said.

Michael W. Mitchell, of Rockford, Ill., entered Randall's Firearms Inc. in Seminole just before 6 p.m. Thursday with a box cutter and tried to steal a gun, said Marianne Pasha, a spokeswoman for the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office.

Mitchell, 50, told deputies he wanted to ``take some action and rescue Terri Schiavo'' after he visited the Pinellas Park hospice where she lives, Pasha said.

The feeding tube that has kept Schiavo alive for more than a decade was removed March 18 over objections from her parents. Schiavo's husband has said his wife would not want to be kept alive artificially.

Doctors have said she would probably die within a week or two of the tube being pulled.

Randy McKenzie, the owner of Randall's Firearms, said Mitchell pulled out the box cutter and broke the glass on a couple of display cases.

``He told me if I wasn't on Terri's side then I wasn't on God's side, either,'' McKenzie told The Associated Press.

McKenzie said he then pointed his own gun at Mitchell and ordered him to lie on the ground. But Mitchell fled out the store's back door before police arrived, he said.

Mitchell was later arrested in a parking lot and was scheduled to appear in court Friday. He was being held on $125,000 bond on charges of attempted armed robbery, aggravated assault and criminal mischief, officials said.

It was not known if he had a lawyer.

Seminole is about 5 miles west of Pinellas Park.

[Tekneek]

And so this is what happens when you, without any basis at all, demonize the husband. You incite a kook to go out and commit a crime. Apparently, he values life so much that he would take more lives to save Terri Schiavo, who would remain oblivious to the whole thing.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

And so this is what happens when you, without any basis at all, demonize the husband. You incite a kook to go out and commit a crime. Apparently, he values life so much that he would take more lives to save Terri Schiavo, who would remain oblivious to the whole thing.

Well, the guy is living with another woman and has had two children with her even though he is still legally married to Terri...As far as I'm concerned, he has no moral authority to continue as either her husband or her legal guardian since what he is doing is grounds for divorce in any state I know about. Also, if Florida hadn't repealed its common law marriage statutes, he'd be practicing bigamy at this point.

What is really troubling is that without any documentation, audiotape or videotape, a judge basically made a life-and-death decision based on which side's hear-say evidence about her wishes he chose to believe.

And the kicker....I can't think of anybody who would want to be allowed to die or watch a loved one die via starvation.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Well, the guy is living with another woman and has had two children with her even though he is still legally married to Terri...As far as I'm concerned, he has no moral authority to continue as either her husband or her legal guardian since what he is doing is grounds for divorce in any state I know about. Also, if Florida hadn't repealed its common law marriage statutes, he'd be practicing bigamy at this point.

Curious how after years of court battles, no Judge at any level has agreed with you. It would seem that you are wrong.

What is really troubling is that without any documentation, audiotape or videotape, a judge basically made a life-and-death decision based on which side's hear-say evidence about her wishes he chose to believe.

What is even more troubling is how you display a complete ignorance of this matter. The courts have seen lots and lots of documentation over the years. They've seen a lot more than you have.

And the kicker....I can't think of anybody who would want to be allowed to die or watch a loved one die via starvation.

But you can think of a lot of people who have lost their cerebral cortex that want to live as a lump in a chair with reflexive reactions and nothing more? As far as watching a loved one die that way, what about people who watch their loved ones asphyxiate? Is that better? What if the law allowed that as an option? After all of the discussion here, and elsewhere, you still do not realize that starvation was the only option offered?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Well, the guy is living with another woman and has had two children with her even though he is still legally married to Terri...As far as I'm concerned, he has no moral authority to continue as either her husband or her legal guardian since what he is doing is grounds for divorce in any state I know about. Also, if Florida hadn't repealed its common law marriage statutes, he'd be practicing bigamy at this point.

What is really troubling is that without any documentation, audiotape or videotape, a judge basically made a life-and-death decision based on which side's hear-say evidence about her wishes he chose to believe.

And the kicker....I can't think of anybody who would want to be allowed to die or watch a loved one die via starvation.

Unfortunately, I believe that your religious faith, which can be a wonderful thing, has blinded you to the evidence(s) that don't agree with your mantra to start. Thus, its pointless, in your world, to have courts, to have doctors, to have evidence, becuase the only one's that should exist are those that are devout in their way of thinking such that all results and thoughts and deeds agree with those that you agree with.

This is one of the things that many people fear...that people like you will push their "beliefs" on others...I echo the sentiments when someone said, thank god for the courts.

[SFL Cat]

Please refute my arguments based on the arguments themselves rather than your obvious distaste about my religious and moral convictions.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

What is even more troubling is how you display a complete ignorance of this matter. The courts have seen lots and lots of documentation over the years. They've seen a lot more than you have.

I guess that means OJ Simpson IS innocent.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Please refute my arguments based on the arguments themselves rather than your obvious distaste about my religious and moral convictions.

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

And the kicker....I can't think of anybody who would want to be allowed to die or watch a loved one die via starvation.

Well, obviously you aren't a good thinker. I can think of one off the top of my head...hmmmm.....Michael Shiavo? Have you heard of him?

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

I guess that means OJ Simpson IS innocent.

No, but he is not guilty of the crime he was accused of. There is a difference between being innocent and not guilty. Ensure you have your facts straight.

[hhiipp]

The really ironic thing is people are fighting to feed someone who had an eating disorder.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

I guess that means OJ Simpson IS innocent.

No, but it means he WAS found to be not guilty (beyond any reasonable doubt) of the crimes he was charged with.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Please refute my arguments based on the arguments themselves rather than your obvious distaste about my religious and moral convictions.

Considering I do not have distaste for your religious beliefs there is no where to go with that.

The evidence is mountainous, in this particular situation, for the judges to base their decisions on, from scientific to Terri's wishes vocalized to more than one person when she was lucid.

I think your faith, in your religion, can be a wonderful thing...when you realize that it is ok, for some people to not have the same beliefs as yours and to consider that the law of our land not be based on one person's beliefs over anothers.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

No, but it means he WAS found to be not guilty (beyond any reasonable doubt) of the crimes he was charged with.

And he was found to be responsible in civil court...which leads one to believe while the jury couldnt decide beyond a reasonable doubt that the prosecution may have done a terrible job. Regardless, the jury court is a beautiful thing at times of comparable enlightenment when compared to the days before the civil rights movement, etc.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

And he was found to be responsible in civil court...which leads one to believe while the jury couldnt decide beyond a reasonable doubt that the prosecution may have done a terrible job.

Well there are different standards in criminal and civil court. You are talking 'beyond a reasonable doubt' compared with 'a preponderance of evidence'. In criminal cases you gotta be 100% sure. In civil cases, you just have to be 51% sure (basically).

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well there are different standards in criminal and civil court. You are talking 'beyond a reasonable doubt' compared with 'a preponderance of evidence'. In criminal cases you gotta be 100% sure. In civil cases, you just have to be 51% sure (basically).

right

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Well, obviously you aren't a good thinker. I can think of one off the top of my head...hmmmm.....Michael Shiavo? Have you heard of him?

Big difference being taken off complete life support and simply being allowed to starve to death. I wouldn't let a dog eaten up with cancer die that way.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Big difference being taken off complete life support and simply being allowed to starve to death. I wouldn't let a dog eaten up with cancer die that way.

You do realize there is no other legal choice other than going against her legally recognized wish to not be forced to stay alive in that state, right? This is a point you continue to dodge.

[SFL Cat]

Don't dodge it...it's not right, inhumane. We wouldn't let the worst criminal on the planet die that way.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Don't dodge it...it's not right, inhumane. We wouldn't let the worst criminal on the planet die that way.

How many of them do you think we would keep alive with a feeding tube while they had no cerebral cortex?

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Big difference being taken off complete life support and simply being allowed to starve to death. I wouldn't let a dog eaten up with cancer die that way.

The problem, SFL, is that you have a moral objection to a private, family, medical issue. You're grasping at straws. The only leg you have to stand on is a religious one, but that doesn't apply here - it's not for your religion to decide what happens to someone else. It doesn't mean your beliefs are wrong in a moral sense - after all, that's a personal choice. It means they don't apply here in a legal sense.

Everyone bemoans the lack of alternatives in this case. No one is hoping that Terri dies a horrible, painful death. But all the scientific and medical proof we have at this point says that Terri cannot and won't feel a thing. There's no awareness at all.

As an aside, I'd also say that your willingness to assassinate Michael's character, post rumor and innunendo and make outright false claims should encourage you to re-examine your own moral belief system. You've come off rather hypocritical in this entire discussion.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Originally Posted by cartman

I just find idiotic the hyprocrisy in this situation. Back in the 2000 election, these very same politicians were castigating Gore for trying to exhaust every available legal channel for a recount, saying he should just let it be. Now, they are fighting tooth and nail, exhausting every legal avenue, and passing constitutionally questionable laws to try and create new legal avenues in this situation. Imagine the uproar if a law was passed that forced Florida to delay certifying the vote until every possible chad in the entire state had been analyzed.

To me, a legal ruling impacting who is going to be President of the US would be much more important and relevant that a legal ruling on a private medical matter between differing views inside a family.

I was just talking to my brother about this yesterday on the way back from Death Valley. We also talked about how it seemed that the feds send out a message that Floridians and their courts arent good enough to make their own decisions.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by CHEMICAL SOLDIER

I was just talking to my brother about this yesterday on the way back from Death Valley. We also talked about how it seemed that the feds send out a message that Floridians and their courts arent good enough to make their own decisions.

Uncle Sam decided they needed to be shown the light and the error of their ways. Uncle Sam knows better than everyone.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

DOLA: I think at this point the family should just spend the last few hours and days with their daughter instead of continuing the circus.

[SFL Cat]

And again Blackie, you're full of sh*t. No one can say with any certainty whether or not she is experiencing pain or discomfort. There have been criminals given stays of executions over issues of whether or not the form of execution being used might cause undo pain and suffering (i.e. cruel or unusual punishment). Don't you think a handicapped innocent deserves the same consideration?

And again, it's not really a religious issue for me. If there were a document, video or audio tape with Terri Schiavo's wishes innumerated, then I wouldn't even be involved in this discussion other than arguing for some form of quick euthanasia. If this were the case, then more than likely, the Schiavo case would never have made the national news like it has and she would have been allowed to die years ago (I believe this is the third time her feeding tube has been removed). However, I have a problem with a judge making a life-and-death decision based sole on what can only be described as "hear-say" evidence -- "Well, Terry told me once about 10 years ago that if she were ever a vegetable, she wouldn't want to live."

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by CHEMICAL SOLDIER

I was just talking to my brother about this yesterday on the way back from Death Valley. We also talked about how it seemed that the feds send out a message that Floridians and their courts arent good enough to make their own decisions.

Well, according to the rest of you, we shouldn't be allowed to vote, either.

[Arles]

While I'm not thrilled about the way she will die, I do think that enough vetting has been done on this process to make me feel that this is more of a trajedy than some sinister plot. And, given I don't know of a better (and legal) way for her to die, I think that there really isn't any other option if it is deemed (as it has been) that she did not want to stay alive.

All that said, this is an interesting bill in theory. In practice, I don't know how valid (ie, enforceable) it would be. Still, I have to admit the spirit of it is appealing:

http://www.detnews.com/2005/politics.../01-125334.htm

"A Michigan lawmaker is working on legislation that would prohibit a spouse having an affair from denying food, fluids or medical treatment to a wife or husband who cannot make such decisions."

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

nice axxon. i love the people who take the time out to write a response to every sentence in a post and try to make believe they're engaging in a debate. you made no statement. you took some of my opinions where i said the sky was blue and you simply called it black. i also love people who can't comprehend figurative speech and take it literally. yes, indeed, if you were to open your window you'd see tanks and Blackhawks and Iraqi rebels. *sigh*

come back to me when you can formulate your own ideas and arguements rather than sit back comfortably in you chair and pick random statements to be contrary to.

this is not an arguement:

HA: "the sky is blue"
Axxon: "no it's not".
HA: "dogs are better than cats"
Axxon: "no, actually they aren't"

you see the point. you are just writing contrary statements, not elaborating on any opinion (or lack theroeof) of your own.

Well, if I was indeed engaged in an argument you'd have a point. Of course, I wasn't.

I said my piece on this months ago when I started a topic that went mostly ignored because Terri wasn't the superstar she is today. I've been following her case for years; no bandwagoner here.

Also, like I said here, this topic is mostly emotion driven, not logic driven so discussing it doesn't help much.

No, what I was doing was expressing my feelings. My feelings are that your posts in this thread make me ill. I don't normally have a problem with you but I feel you're way out of line here and I indeed, quite strongly I think, expressed my opinion.

If you still don't get it, your way of expressing your opinion on this subject sickens me and indeed provides a great reason to hate people because as long as people can act as miserably as you have here then hating them becomes incredibly easy.

[Munsonian]

I'm surprised more people aren't deeply conflicted about this, as I am.

From a sentimental point of view, I wish that there was a more definitive answer on things like whether or not she feels pain and other issues like that. Frankly, the whole process troubles me, and I'm sure that perhaps my stance on the issue would be very much towards keeping her alive if it were one of my loved ones.

However, as far as I can tell (and I don't claim to be a lawyer), the Constitutional and legal sides of this issue clearly point towards allowing her to die "in peace", and the string of rulings against the parents reflects that.

I don't have a horse in this race, and it's been a weird experience seeing so many people with so much passion on each side while I'm sitting here, unable to make up my mind.

In this case, I followed the majority in the poll due to the fact that I have learned to ignore my sentimental side; it shows up in too many of these arguments that should be based in law and reason. I suppose I'm something of a bleeding heart, but there you go.

Just my .02

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Well, the guy is living with another woman and has had two children with her even though he is still legally married to Terri...As far as I'm concerned, he has no moral authority to continue as either her husband or her legal guardian since what he is doing is grounds for divorce in any state I know about. Also, if Florida hadn't repealed its common law marriage statutes, he'd be practicing bigamy at this point.

What is really troubling is that without any documentation, audiotape or videotape, a judge basically made a life-and-death decision based on which side's hear-say evidence about her wishes he chose to believe.

And the kicker....I can't think of anybody who would want to be allowed to die or watch a loved one die via starvation.

you can have your opinion, but you don't have any right to judge this person.

[larrymcg421]

Here's how I feel on the situation. I would want my spouse to do everything in their power to make sure my dying wishes were granted, and that includes taking crap from people that would question her motives. I don't care if others would want to keep me alive. I don't care if my spouse had moved on with a new family (Which I would support.) I'd want her to fight for my wishes just as hard as Michael Schiavo is fighting right now.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

And again Blackie, you're full of sh*t. No one can say with any certainty whether or not she is experiencing pain or discomfort. There have been criminals given stays of executions over issues of whether or not the form of execution being used might cause undo pain and suffering (i.e. cruel or unusual punishment). Don't you think a handicapped innocent deserves the same consideration?

And again, it's not really a religious issue for me. If there were a document, video or audio tape with Terri Schiavo's wishes innumerated, then I wouldn't even be involved in this discussion other than arguing for some form of quick euthanasia. If this were the case, then more than likely, the Schiavo case would never have made the national news like it has and she would have been allowed to die years ago (I believe this is the third time her feeding tube has been removed). However, I have a problem with a judge making a life-and-death decision based sole on what can only be described as "hear-say" evidence -- "Well, Terry told me once about 10 years ago that if she were ever a vegetable, she wouldn't want to live."

I'm full of shit? I'm not the moralist here who has absolutely no proof or evidence...you are. You've tried to support your position with half-truths (and some outright lies), exaggerated examples, moralistic views and innuendo.

No one can say with certainty she's not feeling pain? Well, they have said it - with conviction. The parts of her brain that supposedly recognize pain stimuli aren't there. Now I've even admitted there is the miniscule chance they're wrong...but it's about the same chance of an asteroid destroying the earth today.

She's not the same as a living, breathing, conscious person with an intact brain. So your comparision to a "convicted criminal" and pain and suffering is total hyperbole - it's a BS comparision. A more appropriate question would be more along the lines of "does an amoeba feel pain?"

For comparision's sake, she has less of a brain than JFK after he got shot.

Your problem is you don't like the law. And it's not a judge who has made these decisions, so stop with the "liberal court" angle. Her husband gets to make these decisions. The court believes him (and many of her friends) over her family (who have admitted they wouldn't abide by her wishes anyway) regarding her choices in this matter. That's the way the law works. It's not perfect, but it beats mob rule.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

No one can say with certainty she's not feeling pain? Well, they have said it - with conviction.

Only three of the five doctors who testified even agreed that she was in a "persistant vegetative state." -- and we won't even count the doctor the Schindlers asked to testify, since he was probably slanting things in their favor.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Only three of the five doctors who testified even agreed that she was in a "persistant vegetative state." -- and we won't even count the doctor the Schindlers asked to testify, since he was probably slanting things in their favor.

The other two were the doctors the Schindlers asked/paid to testify.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

How many of them do you think we would keep alive with a feeding tube while they had no cerebral cortex?

Actually, it wouldn't surprise me to see a big stink made over it.

[Bomber]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

The other two were the doctors the Schindlers asked/paid to testify.

Exactly, 2 of the 3 who said she was in a persistent vegetative state were brought in by Michael and the other one was state appointed. Only the 2 doctors the Schindlers brought in said she wasn't. Shocking.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Actually, it wouldn't surprise me to see a big stink made over it.

I would. You would never hear about a situation like that unless you were involved.

[miked]

They also carry very little credibility in their field as well. I've heard them referred to as quacks by very prominent neurosurgeons. When you are looking for an answer, it's not hard to find a hired gun that will give it to you.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Bomber

Exactly, 2 of the 3 who said she was in a persistent vegetative state were brought in by Michael and the other one was state appointed. Only the 2 doctors the Schindlers brought in said she wasn't. Shocking.

Okay, my bad.

court doc

[miked]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Okay, my bad.

court doc

Thank you for posting that, was an interesting read. So basically, none of the docs that her parents hired could show credible proof that their experimental therapies would actually improve her quality of life and reverse a nearly irreversible condition. Additionally, one of them is a cash-only doctor who seems more interested in his image than anything. It's amazing that courts didn't reverse the order based on the testimony of quacks.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Your problem is you don't like the law. And it's not a judge who has made these decisions, so stop with the "liberal court" angle. Her husband gets to make these decisions. The court believes him (and many of her friends) over her family (who have admitted they wouldn't abide by her wishes anyway) regarding her choices in this matter. That's the way the law works. It's not perfect, but it beats mob rule.

The court did not consider his testimony due to the obvious bias. The corroborating evidence in his favor was offered by his brother and sister-in-law, and it was found by judge Greer to be credible. The evidence offered by the family was found to be not credible, because of issues with changing recollection between the deposition and testimony and factual inconsistencies.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Looks like more pokitical fodder for 06 and 08.

[Kodos]

This whole thing is such a sad situation. And it's only made worse by the fact that the only way she is allowed to die is by starvation, when it seems like a shot or something of the like could end the whole thing much quicker and ensure no extended pain for her. I know some would cry murder at such an option, but I would consider it mercy, and would want the quick end for myself if ever I was unfortunate enough to end up in her position.

[Blackadar]

I am really beginning to dislike these people:

(excerpt from CNN)

"Schiavo's parents have said that in the 23 decisions against them, judges have not considered all the facts and, in fact, are joining forces in what Bob Schindler called a "crusade to kill" his daughter."

[cartman]

Here's a link to a video showing the Daily Show's take on the media frenzy surrounding this case.

hxxp://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/03/25.html#a2137

[SFL Cat]

You're quick to castigate those who you say unfairly villify Michael Schiavo, yet you make no effort to understand, the anger frustration, grief and perhaps desperation of a man about to lose one of his children.

[Kodos]

I think a lot of us feel that he lost his daughter 15 years ago. Obviously the parents are in a horrific situation, but I have to wonder if they are doing all this for her, or for themselves.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

You're quick to castigate those who you say unfairly villify Michael Schiavo, yet you make no effort to understand, the anger, frustration and grief of a man about to lose one of his children.

He lost his daughter 15 years ago.

Anyway, I didn't say anything bad about them except that I was beginning to dislike them. Other than that, I passed no opinions about their character, their motives or anything else. Big difference, buckaroo.

[Raiders Army]

Maybe we should send this poll to the Supreme Court.

Justice Rehnquist: "We have received an official poll from the Front Office Football Central. The ayes have it. Let's let her die in peace."


DISCLAIMER: This is just a joke.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

You're quick to castigate those who you say unfairly villify Michael Schiavo, yet you make no effort to understand, the anger frustration, grief and perhaps desperation of a man about to lose one of his children.

What somesone thinks about the husband and what they think about the father are mutually exclusive. There isn't anything that links them, as they are two seperate people.

I have tried to put myself in the father's place, and try to see how I would feel. The way I see it, he has already lost his daughter. All that is left is her physical body. There are no more father-daughter talks, no visits at the holidays, no grandchildren to expect, none of the things that makes a healty relationship. It is entirely one-sided.

I can empathize about the father's anger, frustration and grief. I am sure that if could trade places with his daughter, he would, as would any parent. But I think that these extreme feelings have put him in a state of denial about the situation, especially based on his recent statements about the entire legal system being a in a huge conspiracy to kill his daughter.